Bowler and Morus put together a fantastic survey of the history of science. I think it is adequately philosophical, and it does a great job of gauging the periods in history with a lens that is representative of the era. The problem I see with many works on history is that they approach the content of times past by applying a modern lens. While sometimes useful, I don't think this is a fair way to proceed. At any rate, this is not an issue in Morus and Bowler's work.
What's great about this book is that it does not focus on the history of physics, as so many books of this sort do. Coming from physics, the last thing I wanted was a book about the history of science that was 99% history of physics. The authors were able to get a nice blend of subjects, and they even hit topics like popular science in the 18th and 19th century.
All in all, this book is well written, very, very easy to read, and it has about as much useful information as can be put in so many pages. Above all, it is friendly to a readership not coming from the sciences. Though I come from the sciences, the other students in my class, all of whom were history graduate students with little or no training in the sciences, pointed that not much knowledge of science was necessary to clarify points made by the authors. For anyone that needs convincing on this issue, a quick look at the chapter on 20th century physics will convince you of the readability; no concept is introduced in such a way that it feel completely alien. They do a nice job of wording things.
I do have one negative criticism, though. The book is intended to talk about the making of modern science, but the problem is that much of the Baconian, as well as other philosophical inputs, were, largely, left out. In my view, this is a detriment, in any attempt to understanding the rise of modern science. My feeling was that one more chapter on the development of methods, even if a romp through history, would make for a good additional chapter.
This book is enjoyable, and I recommend it to the scientist, beginning historian of science, beginning philosopher of science, historian, and layman. For the layman, there may be no real need to read anything more, if one's desire is to simply grasp the big picture and gain some competency of the history of science.